Modern Feminism-Good for Society?

anewme

JimmyVik wrote: »

- Im just meeting the lads for a pint.
- Its 10 o'clock, dould you not have done that earlier.


- I was thinking of heading off for the weekend with Paul and the lads.
- Oh, and what do their wives think of this. Are you leaving me on my own all weekend?


- im off for a quick pint.
- Hang on, i'll come with you


- Does my bum look big in this.
- Silence
- Can you not answer a simple question.
- No, it doesnt look big. It looks normal.
- Why couldnt you just say that the first time i asked. It does doesnt it.
- Yes
- Whack

Wtf is that supposed to be ? :pac:

...Ghost...

anewme wrote: »

Wtf is that supposed to be ? :pac:

It gave me a few giggles reading it. Bit of satire based loosely on real life for some couples

JimmyVik

anewme wrote: »

Wtf is that supposed to be ? :pac:

You must not be married and dying for a quiet pint.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

True enough. It's important to establish early certain boundaries.

Most of my friends are women, many of whom I've dated previously. It's just a thing with me, that I tend to have better friendships with those who know me best. When I have a new girlfriend, though, often that woman will seek to limit my friendships (for all manner of reasons), and I establish early that I'll continue seeing those friends... if she can't trust me with these friends, then that's an issue that needs resolving early, rather than allowing it to simmer.

We all need to establish our own space, and authority in a relationship. Few women will continue to respect you if you fold whenever she wants something. And vice versa.

Everyone seeks to exercise some control over their partners, but it's not as negative as some posters want to suggest.

Totally agree. My wife is certainly my equal and we both need a reminder every now and then of boundaries. We are both also reasonable so it's not an issue.

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

You obviously believe passionately in this idea and I don't totally disagree.

However, can you point to any time in the past where there was unlimited, consequence free, "free speech". There have always been limits sometimes extremely limited and unfair.

There is also a point I think you're missing is that people calling for limits to your free speech are also expressing an opinion and their right to free speech permits that opinion.

If you think there should be no limits to what I say fair enough. If I then call for the banning of a particular group then I am simply expressing my free speech.

You might object about what I'm saying but you can't deny my right to say it.
Which is all grand until what I am saying is acted upon.
That is the problem, no speech or message, in itself, is harmful until it is acted on.

So a poster calling for a post to be removed is expressing an opinion. In unfettered free speech that opinion, as expressed, is valid.

You may dislike that opinion intensely, but from your own outlook, as expressed here, you should not have a problem with them voicing that opinion. After all free speech.. etc

Absolutely, 100% agreed. I am in no way stating that Anewme or anyone else arguing from the 'leftist' (I do disagree with pro-censorship beliefs being regarded as anything other than right wing, but I digress) point of view on these issues should be prevented from doing so or are wrong in doing so. I am simply stating my opinion that doing so makes one a bit of a douchebag.

On absolutely no account would I report a post or anything like that for ideological reasons, and there are former mods of these forums from back in the horrible days of Boards' heavy left wing moderation bias during the early 2010s, who probably still have old PMs from me in their inboxes demanding that someone I was arguing with be unbanned, as I was enjoying the argument and it was less fun with the right wing instigators prevented from participating

So I absolutely agree with someone's right to call for things to be banned. I'm merely expressing my own right to state that those who do so are gobsh!tes.

While my post was primarily directed at Anewme in response to another post, I'm just curious - where would you stand on the idea of remaining close friends with and even dating a person whose political or social beliefs were diametrically opposed to your own?

I for one find it extremely sad that politics has become so polarised that people are now judged on the friendships they keep even if their own track record in political activism should speak for itself. I mean FFS, being far right or left wing has no bearing on whether you find someone physically sexy as f*ck and feel at ease and relaxed chatting with or hanging out with someone.

Silentcorner

Eric Cartman wrote: »

‘Unconscious bias’ , youve almost marked the whole card of ‘poppycock bingo’ in this thread

Absolutely, the language of the Authoritarian!!

...Ghost...

joe40 wrote: »

You obviously believe passionately in this idea and I don't totally disagree.

The poster said enough to suggest a passion up to and including dropping off leaflets and taking part in demos.

However, can you point to any time in the past where there was unlimited, consequence free, "free speech". There have always been limits sometimes extremely limited and unfair.

Every action leads to a reaction which is a consequence of the action or thing said. Not all reactions are proportional, but no, there is no such thing as a consequence free "free speeche". The point is however that one should be free to say things without the risk of having their voice silenced.

There is also a point I think you're missing is that people calling for limits to your free speech are also expressing an opinion and their right to free speech permits that opinion.

If you think there should be no limits to what I say fair enough. If I then call for the banning of a particular group then I am simply expressing my free speech.

You might object about what I'm saying but you can't deny my right to say it.
Which is all grand until what I am saying is acted upon.
That is the problem, no speech or message, in itself, is harmful until it is acted on.

So a poster calling for a post to be removed is expressing an opinion. In unfettered free speech that opinion, as expressed, is valid.

When you say limits....where do you draw the line. Personally I think racist or hateful speech should be challenged, but it should not be silenced because what we can't see or hear, we can't debate or challenge.

You say that you are exercising your free speech by calling for rules, limits and even for posts to be removed. It is cynical at best to say you are exercising free speech when the aim is to gag or silence others and prevent them from expressing their views. In doing so, you are saying that your views are more important than all the other who disagree with you. If you want group think mentality, there are plenty of twitter groups to bounce around the same ideas, but I would hope Boards still has some sense to maintain a balance of views lest it become an irrelevant echo chamber like so many other mediums.

Finally, a poster should only be calling for a post removal if (a) the post contains copyright, or illegal content or (b) the post is a malicious personal attack on another poster.

You may dislike that opinion intensely, but from your own outlook, as expressed here, you should not have a problem with them voicing that opinion. After all free speech.. etc

Again. Calling to ban voices is not exercising free speech. It's calling for an end to free speech. Openly disagreeing with other views is exercising free speech.

anewme

...Ghost... wrote: »

Again. Calling to ban voices is not exercising free speech. It's calling for an end to free speech. Openly disagreeing with other views is exercising free speech.

There was a recent thread in The Ladies Lounge raising concerns about tolerance and acceptance of extreme views against women and other minority groups. So much so, that people stated they had left Boards.ie, including a long term respected and balanced moderator due to the hatred tolerated. Others posted that they would not post due to a fear of being turned on and abused.

Now, central to this, was a thread on 'women's fashions', seeing women described in very derogatory terms. A 'brave' poster thought it appropriate to go on a rant about fat women, calling them fat pigs in Yoga pants, and saying they should wear sacks to cover up in his presence.

Now, you might call that free speech, but I call it hate speech. Hate speech adds no debate, no value, it's there to demean and drive people away.

There has to be a charter in the interests of quality and inclusion for all.

Some posters feel that free speech means free for all, but I'd disagree with that.

EmmetSpiceland

anewme wrote: »

There was a recent thread in The Ladies Lounge raising concerns about tolerance and acceptance of extreme views against women and other minority groups. So much so, that people stated they had left Boards.ie, including a long term respected and balanced moderator due to the hatred tolerated. Others posted that they would not post due to a fear of being turned on and abused.

Then there was a thread in the “Feedback” forum giving out that there was a safe space in the “Ladies Lounge” where the posters could point out, and discuss, sexism across boards.

Thought it was very odd myself but some people just seem to seek out things to offend them or that they can “complain” about.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely, 100% agreed. I am in no way stating that Anewme or anyone else arguing from the 'leftist' (I do disagree with pro-censorship beliefs being regarded as anything other than right wing, but I digress) point of view on these issues should be prevented from doing so or are wrong in doing so. I am simply stating my opinion that doing so makes one a bit of a douchebag.

On absolutely no account would I report a post or anything like that for ideological reasons, and there are former mods of these forums from back in the horrible days of Boards' heavy left wing moderation bias during the early 2010s, who probably still have old PMs from me in their inboxes demanding that someone I was arguing with be unbanned, as I was enjoying the argument and it was less fun with the right wing instigators prevented from participating

So I absolutely agree with someone's right to call for things to be banned. I'm merely expressing my own right to state that those who do so are gobsh!tes.

While my post was primarily directed at Anewme in response to another post, I'm just curious - where would you stand on the idea of remaining close friends with and even dating a person whose political or social beliefs were diametrically opposed to your own?

I for one find it extremely sad that politics has become so polarised that people are now judged on the friendships they keep even if their own track record in political activism should speak for itself. I mean FFS, being far right or left wing has no bearing on whether you find someone physically sexy as f*ck and feel at ease and relaxed chatting with or hanging out with someone.

Thanks for the reply that makes a lot of sense.

In terms of been friends with people with diametrically opposed views I think that is great if it can be maintained but I find people tend to mix with like minded people.
I would have friends with people who would have different opinions, and had plenty of good discussions. But they're still what I would call reasonable people.

I would find it hard to be friends with someone who is an absolute racist or someone who believes ISIS is justified in their attacks.

So in answer to your question, it is great to be on friendly terms with people with differing opinions but still I think there would be limits.

My parents had totally opposite views on NI conflict when I was a child. Usually what happened, was the topic was simply avoided. They still managed to stay married til death and raised 4 fairly balanced children.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

There was a recent thread in The Ladies Lounge raising concerns about tolerance and acceptance of extreme views against women and other minority groups. So much so, that people stated they had left Boards.ie, including a long term respected and balanced moderator due to the hatred tolerated. Others posted that they would not post due to a fear of being turned on and abused.

Now, central to this, was a thread on 'women's fashions', seeing women described in very derogatory terms. A 'brave' poster thought it appropriate to go on a rant about fat women, calling them fat pigs in Yoga pants, and saying they should wear sacks to cover up in his presence.

Now, you might call that free speech, but I call it hate speech. Hate speech adds no debate, no value, it's there to demean and drive people away.

There has to be a charter in the interests of quality and inclusion for all.

Some posters feel that free speech means free for all, but I'd disagree with that.

That paints a sorry "little women" picture of poor, timid ladies running away from words on a screen.

Argue back or disengage, but you can't expect others to accommodate everyone else's sensibilities.

joe40

...Ghost... wrote: »

The poster said enough to suggest a passion up to and including dropping off leaflets and taking part in demos.



Every action leads to a reaction which is a consequence of the action or thing said. Not all reactions are proportional, but no, there is no such thing as a consequence free "free speeche". The point is however that one should be free to say things without the risk of having their voice silenced.



When you say limits....where do you draw the line. Personally I think racist or hateful speech should be challenged, but it should not be silenced because what we can't see or hear, we can't debate or challenge.

You say that you are exercising your free speech by calling for rules, limits and even for posts to be removed. It is cynical at best to say you are exercising free speech when the aim is to gag or silence others and prevent them from expressing their views. In doing so, you are saying that your views are more important than all the other who disagree with you. If you want group think mentality, there are plenty of twitter groups to bounce around the same ideas, but I would hope Boards still has some sense to maintain a balance of views lest it become an irrelevant echo chamber like so many other mediums.

Finally, a poster should only be calling for a post removal if (a) the post contains copyright, or illegal content or (b) the post is a malicious personal attack on another poster.




Again. Calling to ban voices is not exercising free speech. It's calling for an end to free speech. Openly disagreeing with other views is exercising free speech.

Sorry I think you may have misinterpreted my post. (The person I was replying got what I meant)

I agree censorship should be very limited.

I was just pointing out a catch 22 situation as I see it. If you complain or try to restrict people calling for censorship then you are in fact restricting their free speech.

Obviously campaigning against actual censorship is totally different.

anewme

anewme wrote: »

There was a recent thread in The Ladies Lounge raising concerns about tolerance and acceptance of extreme views against women and other minority groups. So much so, that people stated they had left Boards.ie, including a long term respected and balanced moderator due to the hatred tolerated. Others posted that they would not post due to a fear of being turned on and abused.

Which is understandable in a wider context. I left the vast majority of social media for those same reasons, because often people would attack the individual rather than the opinion.

However, boards is moderated. Outright abuse is crushed here, although there's some leeway for those who like to use the term racist, sexist, bigot, etc.

If someone is afraid of being abused, they should use the report function. It's really that simple.

Now, central to this, was a thread on 'women's fashions', seeing women described in very derogatory terms. A 'brave' poster thought it appropriate to go on a rant about fat women, calling them fat pigs in Yoga pants, and saying they should wear sacks to cover up in his presence.

He's entitled to his opinion. I've seen similar posts by women talking about men's bellies, or deragatory comments about skinny guys with no muscle. There is an expectation, now, that people should be able to appear as they wish, and nobody should be able to comment on it. Considering the focus on beauty and appearance in society (strongly driven by women themselves), it's no surprise that people will be critical of others appearance, especially when it goes so strongly against the norms. As in women, who are fat'n'proud, and push their own expectations on to others, demanding that they be accepted.

Now, personally, I believe that people should show a degree of politeness, seeking to avoid insulting others... however, I've noticed that's becoming more and more rare as time goes by.

Now, you might call that free speech, but I call it hate speech. Hate speech adds no debate, no value, it's there to demean and drive people away.

I'd call it rude, and impolite behavior. Not hate speech, nor free speech. We had social conventions in the past, which guided people in how to behave with others. Society pushed most people to conform to social expectations, but that was seen as tyrannical, sexist, or whatever. So, the expectation that everyone should be able to do, or say what they wished was encouraged. When you remove constraints on people, you're going to get a lot of negatives. I doubt too many women want to go back to being restricted in how they behave/speak, so, they're just going to have to accept the negatives with the positives. (Unless there's the expectation of more double standards being applied in favor of women)

There has to be a charter in the interests of quality and inclusion for all.

Some posters feel that free speech means free for all, but I'd disagree with that.

So would I... however, boards does have rules, and those rules are fairly well enforced. Nothing will ever be perfect, especially in a world, where people are being encouraged to be more sensitive, and the belief that they're entitled to be safe everywhere. Context is important. AH is generally a no-holds barred forum, with all manner of trolls looking to push buttons, and go nuts when they trigger a reaction. It's always been that way, and while it is moderated, a lot will get past the moderators, unless it's reported. Even then, there's a lot of reporting for minor things, which takes away the mods attention from the more serious offenses.

In many ways, the internet has always been a harsh environment.. and some people just aren't suited to dealing with it. And honestly, the push to make it a more "safe" environment has likely made it worse than ever before.

joe40

The best advice I heard for navigating life and social interaction was summed up in 2 rules.

1 Don't be a dick.
2 Don't be a pussy.

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

That paints a sorry "little women" picture of poor, timid ladies running away from words on a screen.

Argue back or disengage, but you can't expect others to accommodate everyone else's sensibilities.

No it most certainly does not.

Everyone has their own tolerance levels and mine could be different than yours or different than others. The posts on the thread speak for themselves.

There is a core of nasty posters who come en masse to circle the wagons and many people dont have the capacity to take on that level of negativity. It's not healthy.

There is no arguing with a person describing other people as fat pigs. No one should have to either.

JimmyVik

Having been stuck at home for the last year and in the same room as the bi-weekly zoom girly night, all I can say is WOW.
Women sure can insult other women when they get into their own a little clique. 1000 times more venemos than men would be.
For the first while i was actually shocked. Now ive come to realize, its just women being women about women.
Men have their own version of this, but .... my God, i would hate for other women to hear what is being said about them when they are not in the conversation.

stefanovich

Eric Cartman wrote: »

‘Unconscious bias’ , youve almost marked the whole card of ‘poppycock bingo’ in this thread

You are prejudiced but you just don't know it.

I thought they were able to just to read your mind. Uncover your the real intentions rather than taking you at face value.

Now it goes further. They can delve into your subconscious and tell you what you don't even know about yourself!

I'd monetise this skill if I had it.

anewme

Deleted User wrote: »

In many ways, the internet has always been a harsh environment.. and some people just aren't suited to dealing with it. And honestly, the push to make it a more "safe" environment has likely made it worse than ever before.

Not quoting all your post...agree in principal with most, I dint see posts here mocking mens appearance from women at all?

As regards calling someone a pig, that's abuse not an opinion and reflects only on the person making the post. To me its hate though. Blind anger and hate.

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

No it most certainly does not.

Everyone has their own tolerance levels and mine could be different than yours or different than others. The posts on the thread speak for themselves.

There is a core of nasty posters who come en masse to circle the wagons and many people dont have the capacity to take on that level of negativity. It's not healthy.

There is no arguing with a person describing other people as fat pigs. No one should have to either.

But the reality is everyone judges others on things from your accent, your clothes, the car you drive, the type of house you live in, your address, your occupation, your income and your physical appearance.

You're expecting others to adapt to your personal tolerance level. Comments like "Boobs" or "Fat pigs" set an extraordinarily low threshold for tolerance.

Comments are made about both men and women and directed at both genders. There's plenty of slim women who call other women fat.

It's naive to think this doesn't happen, and naive and arrogant to expect your opinion to be the one listened to. We'd never leave the house if we let these things upset us.

TomTomTim

joe40 wrote: »

The best advice I heard for navigating life and social interaction was summed up in 2 rules.

1 Don't be a dick.
2 Don't be a pussy.

Some would call that "toxic masculinity"

Leg End Reject

TomTomTim wrote: »

Some would call that "toxic masculinity"

Stop mansplaining.

Eric Cartman

stefanovich wrote: »

You are prejudiced but you just don't know it.

I thought they were able to just to read your mind. Uncover your the real intentions rather than taking you at face value.

Now it goes further. They can delve into your subconscious and tell you what you don't even know about yourself!

I'd monetise this skill if I had it.

I have a funny feeling that in reality they just see white skin and a male appearance and make very hateful assumptions. Thats usually how these things go

stefanovich

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have a funny feeling that in reality they just see white skin and a male appearance and make very hateful assumptions. Thats usually how these things go

Isn't that an example of both racism and sexism?

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

But the reality is everyone judges others on things from your accent, your clothes, the car you drive, the type of house you live in, your address, your occupation, your income and your physical appearance.

You're expecting others to adapt to your personal tolerance level. Comments like "Boobs" or "Fat pigs" set an extraordinarily low threshold for tolerance.

Comments are made about both men and women and directed at both genders. There's plenty of slim women who call other women fat.

It's naive to think this doesn't happen, and naive and arrogant to expect your opinion to be the one listened to. We'd never leave the house if we let these things upset us.

We will have to agree to differ on thresholds.

To me, calling anyone a fat pig that should be hidden from sight is a grade a dick.

I'd like to meet that poster in real life, timid and all as I am.:pac:

stefanovich

TomTomTim wrote: »

Some would call that "toxic masculinity"

What about toxic femininity? Doesn't really work does it...

Femininity sounds positive.
Masculinity negative.

I've been conditioned?

Femininity to me suggests empathy, grace, compassion, nurturing, elegance...

Is there a negative variant?

Leg End Reject

anewme wrote: »

We will have to agree to differ on thresholds.

To me, calling anyone a fat pig that should be hidden from sight is a grade a dick.

I'd like to meet that poster in real life, timid and all as I am.:pac:

They'd probably just consider you to be a hysterical feminist or SJW, so it's unlikely you'd change their outlook, timid or not.

joe40

TomTomTim wrote: »

Some would call that "toxic masculinity"

"Don't be a pussy" can apply to both genders.

I don't view the phrase "toxic masculinity" as saying masculinity is toxic.

For example the traveling bands of football hooligans is a prime example of toxic masculinity. Not at all a reflection on all Men or on masculinity in general.

There are plenty of very positive human traits which could be characterised as masculine.

By the way I think some behaviours more common in females such as a particular type of bitchiness could also be described as toxic. But again not a reflection on all Women.

JimmyVik

anewme wrote: »

We will have to agree to differ on thresholds.

To me, calling anyone a fat pig that should be hidden from sight is a grade a dick.

I'd like to meet that poster in real life, timid and all as I am.:pac:

Enough of the threats now

anewme

Leg End Reject wrote: »

They'd probably just consider you to be a hysterical feminist or SJW, so it's unlikely you'd change their outlook, timid or not.

I would not be looking to change their outlook.

Same as the chap yesterday was not looking to change Piers Morgans.

anewme

JimmyVik wrote: »

Enough of the threats now

Only if you take it that way.